Download a PDF version of this rubric
ITIF CRITERIA |
DESCRIPTION |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
Presidential / Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education Priorities |
The degree to which the project is focused on these priorities | The project is very clearly connected to these priorities | The project is connected to some aspect of these priorities | The project is tangentially connected to these priorities | There is no apparent connection to these priorities |
| Curricular & Programmatic Priorities | Prospects for integration into a unit/program’s overall curriculum plan and programmatic priorities | The project is very clearly connected to the unit’s curricular & programmatic priorities | The project is connected to some of the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities | The project is vaguely connected to one of the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities | There is no apparent connection to the unit’s curricular and programmatic priorities |
|
Collaboration |
The project involves more than one person | This is a collaborative project from one or more units/programs /departments | This is a collaborative project of a team of individuals or a single unit/program/ department | This is a project from a single individual | N/A |
| Interdisciplinary / Interprofessionalism | The interdisciplinary/ interprofessional nature of the project | The project clearly leverages multiple interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities across multiple units | The project clearly leverages interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities within the unit | The project leverages some interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities | No interdisciplinary or interprofessional opportunities are articulated in the proposal |
| Student Involvement | The level of student involvement in the project | The proposal clearly articulates active roles for students in the project, and envisions using a majority of funds for this purpose | The proposal clearly articulates active roles for students in the project | The proposal vaguely articulates some kind of role for students in the project | The proposal does not articulate a role for students in the project |
| Assessment & Evaluation | The assessment/ evaluation component of the project (with credit for having a SOTL focus) | The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is clearly articulated and has a SOTL focus | The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is clearly articulated but without a SOTL focus | The methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is vaguely articulated | No methodology for assessing/ evaluating the success of the project is articulated in the proposal |
|
Transferability |
The transferability of the project’s idea or concept to other units | The proposal clearly & specifically articulates how the project can be used by other units (with specific examples) | The proposal articulates how the project can be used by other units but without specific examples | The idea that other units could use the project is vaguely articulated | There is no articulation of how other units will make use of the project. |
|
Shareability |
The degree to which the project is ‘shareable’, ‘modifiable’ or uses open standards. | The proposal clearly and specifically articulates that the project is shareable and modifiable (through, for example, the use of open standards and Creative Commons licensing). | The proposal articulates that the project is modifiable (through, for example, the use of open standards). | Open standards are employed in the development of the project, but modifiability or shareability is not explicitly addressed in the proposal | The proposal does not address shareability, transferability or open standards, or, explicitly states that none of these factors are part of the project. |
| UofT Resources | The degree to which the project leverages existing resources and mechanisms at UofT | The proposal clearly articulates the internal UofT resources that will be leveraged for the project and envisions most of the non-student funding being spent on internal UofT services | The proposal articulates the internal UofT resources that will be used for the project but includes expenditures on external services that would otherwise be available at UofT | The proposal is vague about which UofT resources or services will be leveraged for the project. | The proposal advocates for spending the complete budget on external resources or services that would otherwise be available at UofT |
|
Budget |
The specificity of the matching funds | The proposal clearly and specifically articulates the source and nature of matching funds | The proposal articulates the source and nature of matching funding | The proposal contains only a supporting letter of matching funds | [The proposal does not contain a supporting letter of matching funds] |
|
Sustainability |
The specificity of a plan for the long-term sustainability of the initiative | The proposal clearly and specifically articulates the long-term mode of sustainability for the project | The proposal articulates a mode of sustainability for the project | The proposal contains only a vague notion of how the project will be sustained beyond the terms of the funding | The proposal does not articulate how the project will be sustained beyond the terms of the funding |